View Full Version : Win 2K pro much faster then Win XP!
Just wiped out Win XP and did a clean install of Win 2K PRO. Man win 2k is so much faster! I have yet to play any games. But I do have SP2 installed. From what I hear most games will run on win 2k with the latest service pack. I'll let you know.
Originally posted by bdf24
Just wiped out Win XP and did a clean install of Win 2K PRO. Man win 2k is so much faster! I have yet to play any games. But I do have SP2 installed. From what I hear most games will run on win 2k with the latest service pack. I'll let you know.
I wouldn't bet on it that all games would run on it EVEN after SP2..
I doubt it had corrected its DX compatiblity..
Last time I tried to play NBA Live 2001 on Win2K it wouldn't let me even after SP2.. I realy like Win XP ;p
You guys gotta really make up your minds LOL.
what do you mean I gotta make up my mind. I've never ran Win2K till now. I'ts actually pretty similiar to XP without all the extra stuff I don't need anyway. like i said i have'nt tried any games yet. but i will.
Until all games are functional on Win2K I'll switch over.. But probably not I hate formating.
Originally posted by Yodums
Until all games are functional on Win2K I'll switch over.. But probably not I hate formating.
I'm getting sick of it too. I'm just experimenting with them all. Either way. XP and 2K beat 98 hands down. Mainly for stability. I'ts nice having a stable OS! Also most of the games I play are new games. So theres a better chance they will run.
yes i do prefer win2kpro over xp also.
it does run faster, esps on older machines.
i havent had any problems with any of the games i play.
I'm going back to Win2k now, because XP is bloated, and I just got my SP3 to test. :D
Originally posted by sfa ok
I'm going back to Win2k now, because XP is bloated, and I just got my SP3 to test. :D
sp3 is out? how did you get it?
xp is faster than win2k trust me it will run games better.
I'm in the beta program for SP3. I don't do much gaming, and I enjoy the simple, non-bloated Win2k.
I've tweaked and tweaked WinXP and it still ran slower then 2K did on a fresh install with no tweaking. So far all of the games I play run fine. So I'm satisfied as of right now.
Originally posted by bdf24
I've tweaked and tweaked WinXP and it still ran slower then 2K did on a fresh install with no tweaking. So far all of the games I play run fine. So I'm satisfied as of right now.
Well what do you think your fresh cleaned OS and a Win XP OS which you've ran for some time now..
And benchmark have proven that Win XP is faster.. I do agree that Win2K is great for every machine and that Win XP is a "system hog" using alot of your system... I'm at the minimum requirements of Windows XP and it still runs great.. And I love the new look something fresh to look at rather than that old gross look :)
The only games I can't run on here are games that require Real Mode DOS. Windows 2000 doesn't like to let anything other than the kernel talk to the hardware.
rUfUnKy
11-11-01, 10:26 PM
Win XP is far more superior on my machine then Win 2K pro SP2 in every aspect most of all it's ALOT faster better stability and much better game play......
!-=sky=-!
11-12-01, 09:01 AM
i think winxp and win2k the same
but winxp boots faster after running bootvis and stuff like that
i like it a lot now
but win2k the games wouldnt work....well at least some wont
As long as I can get the games I play to work it's fine for me. I play mostly newer games anyway.
You'll notice a huge difference lets say you were on my computer hehe.. But the only reason I chose XP over win2k is it compatiblity!
Well I think once SP3 comes out for Win2K you'll see almost all of those compatibility issues disappear. XP is good though. I would consider reinstalling it once I get a faster cpu and more ram.
Originally posted by bdf24
Well I think once SP3 comes out for Win2K you'll see almost all of those compatibility issues disappear. XP is good though. I would consider reinstalling it once I get a faster cpu and more ram.
I think your system is fine.. Doubles the requirements cept for the ram..
What do you think Win XP Pro will be like when it has SP1.. Alot of things will change hehe :) like all the bugs and stuff.
I installed Win XP on my dads machine. He's got a T-Bird 1.2 gig w/512 megs of ram. There's a night and day difference in speed running Win XP between his machine and mine. And that was with my system tweaked and everything standard in on his.I think a lot of a was due to him having twice as much ram as me. Cause Win XP is a resource hog.
Originally posted by bdf24
I installed Win XP on my dads machine. He's got a T-Bird 1.2 gig w/512 megs of ram. There's a night and day difference in speed running Win XP between his machine and mine. And that was with my system tweaked and everything standard in on his.I think a lot of a was due to him having twice as much ram as me. Cause Win XP is a resource hog.
Yes Win XP is a ram hogger.. and I think you should have at least 512 mb..
vlovich
04-20-02, 07:20 PM
XP is based on Win2k technology. That means any games that run on XP will run on Win2k (even faster since win2k doesn't have all that extra useless crap). Win2k has absolutely no issues with DX (i run 8.1 perfectly with no hitches) and 128-bit encryption was included in SP2 (that means you don't have to wait for SP3).
Originally posted by Yodums
You'll notice a huge difference lets say you were on my computer hehe.. But the only reason I chose XP over win2k is it compatiblity!
I have found that if you patch the games themselves they can work under win2k, I have done it with quite a few of my games and 99.9% of them work now. I love win2k, once winXP ages a little and the kinda fix it up (like win2k, it's alot better now than it was when it was released), I may give it a shot.
Fiz
XP is based on Win2k technology. That means any games that run on XP will run on Win2k (even faster since win2k doesn't have all that extra useless crap). Win2k has absolutely no issues with DX (i run 8.1 perfectly with no hitches) and 128-bit encryption was included in SP2 (that means you don't have to wait for SP3). I have SEVERAL games that would prove this theory wrong...including the games designed for 95/98, that won't recognize 2K as a DX machine because of the NT structure...for a gaming rig, hands down XP beats 2K for compatabilty...just get alot of RAM!
Mr. $T$
04-20-02, 11:57 PM
Lol same happend to me
I have had few games that will not run under win2k, it's only because my newer video card (or driver) does not support old 3Dfx's "glide" games.
win2k I like very much after I had win95, 98SE and ME.
You don't have to reboot after lan parties or long use of machine.
I have used couple of friends machines with XP home and XP pro with 1.6> CPU,DDR or RDRAM and i do not notice faster speeds.
maby with better 3d cards and I/O it will run better. if I have to spent 200 on XP pro, I'd rether get another CPU, mobo and run a dual config with win2k. That's just me
So if u had a choice of upgrading windows, would u have XP home or Win2k?
i'm going for win 2k, despite using my PC mostly for games, cos most ppl say it's better, and it doesn't look like something from a 5 year olds TV show with all its dayglo colours and rounded buttons (which i hate!)
(i'm buying a new PC which will have 512MB RAM, so that's not an issue)
it doesn't look like something from a 5 year olds TV show with all its dayglo colours and rounded buttons (which i hate!) My desktop looks just like 2K...you can set the themes to look like what ever you want (to get back some resources) :rolleyes:
MospeadasDark
04-21-02, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by takiwa
My desktop looks just like 2K...you can set the themes to look like what ever you want (to get back some resources) :rolleyes:
You sissy=P Have a fast machine and you want a non-bloated slim OS? That's crazy talk! I like tranparencies everywhere! All my menus texture skinned. 3D at that=) Come now, nice and neat is for the wimmin. If I got a fast system w/ lots of ram I want an OS to bog it down!
Oh yea, just because XP is *BASED* on NT tech doesn't mean it is 2K w/ bloat. It's much different and if you took more than a week to try it you would realize it too. There are some games that work w/ 2K that don't work with XP. Spme that work XP and not 2K. Then there's the drivers. If they were both the same why is there seperate XP and 2K drivers? Whereas ME was 98 with bloat and drivers for either OS worked with eachother. Similar? yes, same? no.
Think Q3A to SS. SS takes a bit more resources but all the same SS uses it better. It especially doesn't slow in those open arena blow all up w/ rocket launcher maps.
i'm sticking to 2k, and dual boot win 98. i just don't like XP (and it limits d3d refresh rates to 75hz, open gl to 60hz)
MospeadasDark
04-21-02, 12:01 PM
There are refresh fixes for both 2K and XP.
I like xp, even though it is a little slower sometimes. I can run all my programs and have a good network. It is fine for me.
By the way R0BB23 your avatar is great!!
kyle1745
04-21-02, 12:07 PM
Speed wise I did not notice a difference from Win2k to XP, on the same PC. Though I bet if you did not have a lot of memory Win2k might be a little faster.
Over all on a newer PC XP is much better than Win2k. I turned off most of the graphical crap. It was cool for about a week then you get sick of it.
XP is by far the best over all desktop OS. I'd say on antyhing above a 500mhz with at least 128mb of ram.
Kyle
Peter007
04-21-02, 12:48 PM
I agree and yet disagree with the statement.
However I like to add my 2 cents of clarification
1. XP is faster IF you have a faster CPU with lots of RAM when I say lots, I mean 256mb should be the mininum.
2. Window 2000 is faster on 128mb memory hands down
Window 2000 is also faster on any cpu below 450mhz.
3. However, WinME (with system restore disable) will beats both of them in PURE GAMING Performance, and also if you only have 64mb of memory, winME or 9x is the way to go
I recently have a real Vivid demostration of this comprison on my CTX Laptop with AMD K6(3) 333mhz cpu and only 64mb ram
This is a perfect system to demostate the OS requirement since the 333mhz AMD CPU is the borderline for running WinXP
and mpeg2/ DivX video.
On WinME, Mpeg2 video is smooth. the OS isn't using much CPU resourece and the AMD K6-3 can dedicated 100% into playing Mpeg2/DivX video.
on Window 2000, both my Mpeg2 and DivX is super choppy.
Although the NT Kernal is superior to the older Win9X kernal, it also require more CPU resource to run. My poor AMD K6-3 can't really keep up with running the OS and playing the DivX smoothly @ the same time.
on WindowXP.......................Let just say that What I saw wasn't a "Video" per se, more like watching a Slide show.
This isn't a criticism of WinXP, in fact, I just love the WindowXP.
However it is a Resource HOG, and unless you have a 500mhz or greater CPU with 256mb of RAM - XP isn't useable.
That is my 2 cents
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.